Climate change another name for Weather

[explod]

Sorry I'm not WayneL, but I'll answer it anyway.

1. John McCain

He was sat in a bamboo cage in the tropical sun for 3 or 4 years by his communist captors with high exposure to charlie's sun.

2. People in Oz, UK etc are more prosperous and can have intermittent high exposure to uv light on their holidays, it appears to be more cancer inducing than steady low exposure.

3. People nowadays don't cover up. don't wear hats and get pissed and fall asleep in the sun.

4. It has sfa do do with weather.

gg

and my reply to the above, next post

 

[explod]

What figues back up this preposterous claim. In the 60's on the beach there was never a hat to be seen. Gentlemen used to wear hats as dress up till late 50's. Look in any school yard and at the beach these days and there are hats everywhere. Cancer is a proven problem due to thinning ozone layer, which also varies seasonally as do satellite photo's following snow storms, which in turn melt in a few weeks.

and what is the anacronym "sfa" ? if we a losing an argument we go down to the gutter, albeit: ratbag attention seeking

I differ on your take of hats.

Just cant' rest till I have your secret of the hats.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I differ on your take of hats.

Just cant' rest till I have your secret of the hats.

I accept your take on hats.

Perhaps though in the "good old days" folk went out more, less plasma screens., etc.

Point taken explod mate.

gg

 

[Calliope]

Judging from the quality posts of heretics we are more likely to be brought before HREOC for mistreating the intellectually impaired.

I'm glad you brought up the quality of posts on this thread. The problem is that the alarmist's posts are so pretentious and boring that I can't see you getting any converts.

If you made them shorter and wittier you might do better. The post quoted above shows that you are trying, but I'm sure you can do better. Good luck. After all 'tis the season to be jolly.

 

[wayneL]

Rederob,

The climate optimists may sometimes distort data to present a case for non-warming or non-change. As a matter of fact I'm sure that this is occasionally the case.

However the remarkable fact is that you consider this to be a feature exclusive to the climate optimists argument. I believe you are cognitively biased in this regard, because the pessimist's case is absolutely chocka-block full of logical fallacies, distortions, exaggerations, junk science and downright lies.

We need look no further for evidence of this than the film detailing the Gospel According To St. Al - "An Inconvenient Truth".

Perhaps being faced with the most massive propaganda project in the history of mankind, climate optimists feel they must employ the same tactics as the pessimists. This, though maybe necessary to introduce some balance to the argument in the collective mind of the great unwashed masses, viz, political BS versus political BS, is unfortunate because we need only look objectively at all the available science.

The upshot of all this is that your criticisms of climate optimists, AKA the ad hominem term "Wayne's World", smacks of a deep and disgusting hypocrisy, so obvious that only the most colourful and profane colloquialism could characterize.

As such, it should be disregarded as disingenuous... laughable even.

Cheers

 

[slim pickins]

Callipoe,

The day that you can't question the green-red dogma has already come. You will be called an idiot and a threat to the planet. That's a very dangerous ideology that doesn't tolerate dissent. But who really expects much better from the looney left.

Has anyone noticed that the water is getting closer to their beachside property? If they have I'll buy it right now.

Antartic ice is breaking off but antartica ice shelf is 2km thick and gettiing thicker every day. But they forget to tell you that. It's -60 there in places and the sheet won't melt even if global temperatures increase by 50c which would be lethal.

Ice in antartica will be there long after humanity is gone.

 

[Smurf1976]

Sweeden is Solialist and are going zero co2 by 2020.

A classic example of how it can be done. All dependent on large scale generation and the grid, something those calling for action in this part of the world don't seem too keen on. Sweeden already has close to zero fossil fuel electricity so to get off the CO2 it's simply a matter of running everything from the grid rather than gas, petrol etc.

 

[slim pickins]

all the green-red theory on the world can't do a thing when the facts on the ground speak differently.

And just like communist theory the green theory will be consigned to the dustbin when people look around them and realize they have been scamed and impoverished by people whonknow nothing about the real world.

When australia is bankrupt and uncompetitive just so we can reduce our carbon output by 30% and in one fell swoop a bushfire releases more carbon then 2 years combined, people will wake up.

I still have faith that American conservatists will save us all from this menace just like they did in the 80's

 

[rederob]

The upshot of all this is that your criticisms of climate optimists, AKA the ad hominem term "Wayne's World", smacks of a deep and disgusting hypocrisy, so obvious that only the most colourful and profane colloquialism could characterize.

As such, it should be disregarded as disingenuous... laughable even.

Cheers

You could always try to support your case with something that holds water.
Gore has never been on my radar (I haven't seen Gore's epic) and his actions are somewhat incidental to the underlying science.
The unpretentious Calliope will realise that scientists use observations, hypotheses, and deductions to arrive at conclusions.
Using Stefan's law. Arrhenius formulated his greenhouse law, "if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression; otherwise expressed in simplified form as:
ΔF = α ln(C/C0)
When you next put your brain into gear and stay on topic, rather than launch into your typical rants that add nothing to the debate, we might get somewhere.

ps: a topical start might be to revisit your sea ice story and the science that underpinned it.

 

[wayneL]

You could always try to support your case with something that holds water.
Gore has never been on my radar (I haven't seen Gore's epic) and his actions are somewhat incidental to the underlying science.
The unpretentious Calliope will realise that scientists use observations, hypotheses, and deductions to arrive at conclusions.
Using Stefan's law. Arrhenius formulated his greenhouse law, "if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression; otherwise expressed in simplified form as:
ΔF = α ln(C/C0)
When you next put your brain into gear and stay on topic, rather than launch into your typical rants that add nothing to the debate, we might get somewhere.

ps: a topical start might be to revisit your sea ice story and the science that underpinned it.

I hold to my previous post, as the the conclusions therein, become even more self-evident following your response quoted above.

I will also point out that my post was in fair response to your criticisms and straw man characterizations. Rather than hold the debate to an adult level, you once again revert to that tactic. One questions your need to do this.

Peeps,

There is a fine line between criticizing actions and attitudes, and ad hominem slur and character assassination. I hope I haven't crossed it again, but as a group in this thread, we are once again heading down that road. Let's not.

Cheers

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

rederob,

Using Stefan's law. Arrhenius formulated his greenhouse law, "if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression; otherwise expressed in simplified form as:
ΔF = α ln(C/C0)

You have piqued my interest here. Is that formula a rock solid perfect theory which explains that which is in reality a very difficult study?

Could you provide some more information as to its effectiveness in this case. Any links?

Cheers...

 

[rederob]

I hold to my previous post, as the the conclusions therein, become even more self-evident following your response quoted above.

I will also point out that my post was in fair response to your criticisms and straw man characterizations. Rather than hold the debate to an adult level, you once again revert to that tactic. One questions your need to do this.

Peeps,

There is a fine line between criticizing actions and attitudes, and ad hominem slur and character assassination. I hope I haven't crossed it again, but as a group in this thread, we are once again heading down that road. Let's not.

Cheers

Wayne
Yet again you add nothing meaningful or novel to the topic.

Snake
No. It's a formula that expresses relationships and their effects in a perfect theoretical framework.
There is more than one greenhouse gas so in the real world each would need to be accounted for.

 

[spooly74]

Warning: The following video may cause vomiting.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Another beautiful morning in Townsville.

Weather unchanged.

A nice slow rain last night.

gg

 

[Sean K]

Another beautiful morning in Townsville.

Weather unchanged.

A nice slow rain last night.

gg

Yes, perfect day in Lima this morning and very nice in Cuzco this afternoon. Hopefully it stays dry on the Inca Trail but it's the wet season up here, so I'm hoping GW keeps it dry.

 

[basilio]

I'm glad you brought up the quality of posts on this thread. The problem is that the alarmist's posts are so pretentious and boring that I can't see you getting any converts.

If you made them shorter and wittier you might do better. The post quoted above shows that you are trying, but I'm sure you can do better. Good luck. After all 'tis the season to be jolly.

Shorter and wittier.... Look its not hard to throw up mass generalisations, a sweeping assertion that all scientists who believe the earth is getting rapidly warmer are simply self interested. And then you can top it off with the statement all the believers are evangelical god botherers. On balance that seems to have been the gist of the arguments against global warming in this forum.

Outside this topic in the real world, the business world I would take just as careful a line on the assertions of grand new business deals, great new products and so on. I would imagine most other members would do likewise. I'd want independent evidence, I'd want to look at the skills and background of the people telling the story (their integrity) , I'd want to know if what they were saying could actually work given basic rules of reality. For example when I'm offered an investment that is going to return 1% a day I know its a scam no matter how plausible or inviting it looks.

The question of whether we are taking the biggest gamble of lives, our children and almost everything else on this planet seems important enough to be considered really carefully. And when 99% plus of all the scientists who actually work in this field believe we are on the wrong track is it time to reconsider?

Have a great Christmas with your friends and family

Cheers

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Shorter and wittier.... Look its not hard to throw up mass generalisations, a sweeping assertion that all scientists who believe the earth is getting rapidly warmer are simply self interested. And then you can top it off with the statement all the believers are evangelical god botherers. On balance that seems to have been the gist of the arguments against global warming in this forum.

Outside this topic in the real world, the business world I would take just as careful a line on the assertions of grand new business deals, great new products and so on. I would imagine most other members would do likewise. I'd want independent evidence, I'd want to look at the skills and background of the people telling the story (their integrity) , I'd want to know if what they were saying could actually work given basic rules of reality. For example when I'm offered an investment that is going to return 1% a day I know its a scam no matter how plausible or inviting it looks.

The question of whether we are taking the biggest gamble of lives, our children and almost everything else on this planet seems important enough to be considered really carefully. And when 99% plus of all the scientists who actually work in this field believe we are on the wrong track is it time to reconsider?

Have a great Christmas with your friends and family

Cheers

Basilio mate, you need to use shorter words, they have more punch, less pictures of the earth, less graphs and more argument. Argument is not throwing mountains of stats at those on the other side of the argument.

And this statement sounds more like godbothering than logical argument.

Quote

The question of whether we are taking the biggest gamble of lives, our children and almost everything else on this planet seems important enough to be considered really carefully. Unquote

gg

 

[Calliope]

The question of whether we are taking the biggest gamble of lives, our children and almost everything else on this planet seems important enough to be considered really carefully. [/B] And when 99% plus of all the scientists who actually work in this field believe we are on the wrong track is it time to reconsider?

99% plus :headshake. Now there's a generalisation for you, or is it the usual hyperbole. I am not criticising you for that though. If you want to make a story interesting or alarming you have to tweak the truth a little.

The year is ending on a low note for the extreme environmentalists. Most people who know something about the economy now realise that this financial disaster has some time to run. Those who have been hit by the downturn, and that includes most of us, know where the greatest threat to our well being, and that of our children and grandchildren lies. And it is not climate change.

Even those people who live in posh suburbs in large expensive houses and who drive Toorak Tractors and BMWs are now feeling the pinch. These are the people who have been funding the spoilt brats who invade power stations and cruise the seas making mischief. They fully expected the working class to bear the brunt of the costs of limiting emissions by losing jobs. Now that Rudd has disabused them of that notion they have to get back to reality and realise

it's the economy stupid

Sorry I was so longwinded.

I hope you have a happier New Year, Bas

Cheers, Kel

 

[wayneL]

Here is a meaningless and non-novel article on Gore's movie... 'specially for Rederob.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

 

[slim pickins]

there is very little any of a can say to counter 20 years of indoctrination. Extremist environmentalism has all the hallmarks of a religion. It can't be disproved because if you show that proof it's not happening they just claim it's not happening yet! And I guess they are right, the world will eventually heat up.

When and why is another issue entirely. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

A global downturn will reveal who the true believers of GW are. I just don't think we should all pay for other peoples folly.

It will take a while for people to realize the true goals of the environmentalists, just as it did with communism. At least we won't have to worry about them getting nuclear weapons? but even without nukes their claims that the world is overpopulated sends shivers down my spine!